2. The kind of evidence he used was from other experts, personal stories, and other people that experienced music as a medicine. In the beginning he talked about Congresswoman Giffords and how she wasn’t able to talk but able to sing. He gave examples like “How deeply Parkinsonian patients would find that their tremor and their gait would steady” and “to help people struggling with stress and anxiety and depression.”
3. The speech was well organized since he knew what …show more content…
Because his speech was about music and medicine, he first talks about the disorder, then explains how music can affect it. The transition for each part was evident because on each point he uses “but” to further explain or go on to the next topic. His entire speech was fluid because he talked about things he is expert at.
5. The introduction was effective because he played violin and made people dive in the music atmosphere. After he played, he went straight ahead and gave an anecdote about how music help others. His playing and his story gave people an idea what he was going to talk about.
6. His conclusion was somewhat effective because not all people would relate to his problems. However, it was effective for me because I was stuck on what major I should take and his speech helped me a lot. He chose both music and medicine, that is really interesting.
7. The way he played violin in the beginning showed that he is really knowledgeable about music. He also mentioned a couple of experts to support his claims. He also mentioned his accomplishments and increased his credibility.
8. I think that the speaker is very knowledgeable at what he was talking about. His topics were straight to the point and thought provoking. By using facts and quoting experts, he established credibility, and made him more